Scholarly Comedy

Where are the best places to get a good laugh? Comedians obviously make a buck out of being funny, but sometimes the non-professional is great as well. Of course, what one may find funny is a matter of context and taste.

For example, DarkMatter2525 on YouTube has made a good number of entertaining atheist comedy videos which also have insights into religiosity. Funny, vulgar (very NSFW), and blasphemous. Perfect!

And even scholars can make good jokes on occasion. Here is an example I just came across. Stephen C. Carlson, "The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Καταλυμα in Luke 2.7," New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 326-42 writes about the meaning of the term often translated as "inn" when talking about the birth of Jesus in Luke 2. He refers to a 16th century scholar named Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas or El Brocense who argued that the stable scene from nativity plays was not a proper representation of what the Gospels depict. He was called before the Spanish Inquisition, no laughing matter. He was reprimanded rather than imprisoned in the end, though he would later be called before the Inquisition but died before things got well underway.

In the end, Carlson argued that the term in its context meant that Mary and Joseph didn't have enough space for a new-born in the place they were staying, apparently a home of Joseph. I am not persuaded by the argument, especially supposing Joseph had a home in Bethlehem that he just left 40 days after getting there and leaving for Nazareth. Nonetheless, Carlson notes how scholarship has come a long way since the 16th century:

"Now, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."

That that made it into a paper shows either that editors have a sense of humor or things are going terribly wrong in theological circles. Oh, I mean other than there not actually being a God.

Medical Facepalm of Biblical Portions

I like modern medicine. Considering things like c-sections allowed me to exist in the first place, vaccines have protected me from a large number of diseases, there is much to like. Some of the stuff out there could use work, in part because it is not scientific medicine, and sometimes anti-scientific. Therapeutic touch is one example because the only test of efficacy showed it to be worthless yet this is completely ignored by promoters, including the nurses that use it to this day.

One would hope that the peer-reviewed literature would filter out most of the things that cannot be supported by the evidence. But not always.

Via PZ (see also Aetiology), I have come across an article in Virology Journal which talks about the oldest cases of influenza in recorded history. Interesting subject and worthy of study. What's the source?

The New Testament.

Now we have gone from science to credulity. It's given away that the authors are not critical of their source when they say "The Bible describes the case of a woman with high fever cured by our Lord Jesus Christ." Our Lord Jesus Christ? That is devotional language, not a secular, scholarly way of describing the situation. It also doesn't help that the authors do not cite any biblical scholarship concerning their claims about the authenticity of the story or that Luke was a physician. Also by citing all the Synoptic Gospels, the authors of this "study" seem to think this gives three testimonies of the same story.

Let's nip this in the bud. The Gospels Mark, Matthew, and Luke are not independent witnesses. Matthew and Luke derive most of their material from Mark, and Mark was written after 70 CE, perhaps much later. The tradition that the names attached to the Gospels wrote them is late; it was until the mid-2nd century that these works were anonymous. That means that Mark did not write Mark and Luke did not write Luke. The physician Luke comes from Colossians 4:14, but even this letter of Paul is probably inauthentic. The claim that the testimony of the woman in Luke 4:38-39 comes from a doctor is thus wrong on multiple levels: we don't know who wrote this, it is derived from G. Mark, and there is nothing about a doctor Luke that is dependable.

So let's go to the original story, that in Mark 1:29-33. Both before and after this episode with the feverish woman there are healings of those with demonic possessions. So it is in the middle of this, the beginning of Jesus' ministry, that the authors of this study wish to say they have some authentic medical report. We have to ignore already the supernatural surrounding the tale in just one case.

How did Mark come to this knowledge? Usually biblical scholars figure that many or most of these stories come from an oral tradition, so what we have in Mark is at best hearsay. So we are trying to do a diagnosis based on the telephone game at best! Many scholars have more recently moved to find a great number of these stories in the Gospels to be literary creations, and the healing stories are a part of that.

Healing stories are also very common in the ancient Mediterranean world. The god Asclepius was a well-known deity that supposedly cured the sick. Isthtar/Innanna, a most ancient goddess in Babylon/Sumeria, was said to cure the sick in devotional literature. Even the emperor Vespasian was said to have healed people (Dio, Roman History 66.2).

In other words, we only have the word of Mark for this story, and supposing he did not create the story itself, at best we have decades-old hearsay, hearsay that even the Gospel of John didn't find useful to report. Heck, eve the letters of Peter didn't find this important to mention, and the woman is supposed to be Peter's mother-in-law! (Oh, but those epistles of Peter are fakes, too.)

What I find laughable is the part where the authors are supposed to declare their competing interests. Sure, I don't think they were pain to do this study (who would?), but the whole thing exists because of the credulity of the authors. I guess this got past peer-review because no one at Virology Journal does biblical studies. Who knows about the Synoptic Problem amongst the medical profession after all? Nonetheless, there should have been some critical thought here.

Crime Doesn't Pay

I will be going to the airport soon, and this not long after coming from a trans-Atlantic round-trip a couple of weeks ago. I don't mind plane rides other than it's impossible to lay back far enough to sleep well. At least that's the case in coach. A few hundred more dollars, maybe I'll enjoy a higher class seat. As long as I have a book and an occasional drink, all if fine.

But what kills me is waiting for getting on the plane. Obviously between connecting flights you need some layover time or potentially miss a flight. On my most recent round-trip, I had a seven hour layover in Chicago. I knew that going in, but the plane had mechanical problems. This added another two hours or so of waiting. This waiting period became longer than the actual flight! You can't read anything that long without your eyes burning out. And with $9 crappy beer in a plastic cup, it's hard to make the time go well.

It almost feels criminal, and in fact I think it is. The airports are literally killing. Killing time.

The shear level of chronocide is astounding. There has to be a better way. Unfortunately, with the complexity of the machines involved and the large numbers of people to operate and who need to travel, it's hard to get past the problem. Other than everyone gets flying cars or teleporters, I don't know what can solve this.

What can make mass transit more efficient?

I can think of one thing: make chronocide criminal. That is, if you have to wait longer for a plane than you should, that should be compensated financially. Perhaps this will give an incentive to airlines to find ways of minimizing delays. Inter-airline competition obviously has not eliminated such delays, probably since all airlines are willing to accept delays and so creates a plateau of wasted time no one can avoid. But if chronocide becomes too expensive for airports and airlines, maybe that could change it.

Give me Liberty, and Give me a Break

Libertarianism: great idea, or greatest idea? It has a romantic quality to it, with an emphasis on individuality and the belief that each of us working it out for ourselves will make us all better. This latter belief is perhaps best captured in the concept of free market economics. The more the government is willing to get out of the way, the better. Let enterprising individuals do things, from starting a small business to teaching our children.

And like most romantic ideas, it can be rather naive. For example, there was the recent spat when Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul (and named after Ayn Rand?), stated that the government should not force restaurants to not segregate due to race. The journalist John Stossel even stated that the free market would have taken care of racist businesses. After all, he (nor Paul) would want to do business in a racist institution.

Now just think about that claim. The free market would get rid of racism, at least overt, public racism in business. If that is the case, then why is it that businesses had racist policies for centuries until the 1960s when the federal government finally stepped in to make this illegal? How naive is it to say that that is what the free market would have done when it failed to do so given 100 years after the American civil war. Perhaps there were racist businesses because most people were actually racist? Take for example the situation in 1930s Germany. If you were a restaurant that served both Caucasian Germans and Jews, the white customers would be appalled to have to eat at the same place as those terrible people (horrible in their minds). Antisemitism has a long history, and what helped make it uncouth was not free markets.

In fact, free markets could very well have allowed racism and antisemitism to last. After all, if you are continuously divided from those you see as inferior, there will be nothing to deter you in that belief. Moreover, if you frequent places that have such racist policies, you are most likely to absorb this and pass it off to others, including your children. Only by some force breaking the cycle can it be possible to get away from racism. And once broken, then racism withers and no one wants to support it. The reason Stossel or Paul would not go to such a restaurant today is because they live after a time when it was socially acceptable.

And that is the problem with libertarianism. It pretends things about societies that are simply wrong. For one thing, people are not simply rational agents that constantly figure out what is best for them. Heck, we make the wrong decisions all the time, even when the correct information is given. This is also a problem for economists that blindly and dogmatically follow Adam Smith's invisible hand. Obviously Smith had insights, but his model was ultimately flawed and professional economists need to admit this.

Unfortunately, the naivete of libertarian economics is common in academia even when the evidence is there, staring them in the faces. Check out this special from Nova: Mind Over Money. When professors at the University of Chicago can be as dogmatic as seen there, no wonder a skewed version of reality reaches the public at large.

Though I like some of the propositions of the libertarians, especially when it comes to minimizing government intrusions into private matters and the maximization of freedom, there needs to be some realizations about how people and groups of people actually behave. Rand Paul has even stated that if everyone were good Christians there would be no need for laws. After all, it's not like there have ever been Christians committing crimes or starting wars or abusing children or...

We need to get real here. The loose goal of having as much individual freedom as possible is worthy of admiration, but the laissez-faire approach to governement is a failed strategy. Sure politicians can be complete doofuses, mob mentiality is not the antidote. Heck, mob mentality can lead politicians to do stupid things, such as send us to war. There is obviously a middle ground between a libertarianism as close to anarchy as possible and hyper-communism. I don't know yet where I will fall in this political spectrum (I often vote Democrat, but not always), but I know that these extremes, especially the popular libertarianism today of Beck, Palin, Stossel, Paul, and others is all too often naive and even hypocritical (i.e. the government preventing abortions, monitoring for illegal immigrants, going to war offensively, making the US a Christian nation).

When it comes to spectra, this one is perhaps useful in categorizing libertarians.


Indeed, if you have an overly-simplistic political stance, prepare to look silly.

Happy M-Day--Drawing Muhammad

Today, May 20th, has "officially" been declared Everybody Draw Muhammad day. The idea has been sparked because of the recent flare-up over the censorship at Comedy Central when the popular show South Park wanted to depict the prophet of Islam or at least joke about the censorship of any depiction of him. After a website posted a sort of death threat if the creators of the show actually revealed Muhammad, Comedy Central went crazy on censorship, bleeping out the very name of Muhammad... er, I mean *********, and bleeping out the monologue that gives the show a sense of morality, at least more so than, say, Two and a Half Men.

This is of course also in response to what had happened after the Danish cartoon incident a few years ago. Even now those cartoonists have to worry about their very lives and have been attacked on multiple occasions. So Comedy Central, after seeing what had happened before did not allow Trey and Matt to do what they wanted.

Then again, South Park had already done this. Back in 2001, ******** was featured in an episode. As far as I know, no one was killed or attacked because of this. Oh, and now Comedy Central has blocked that episode from being viewed on its associated websites.

All of this goes against an almost sacred doctrine in the West, that of Freedom of Speech. By declaring "blasphemy" all of the sudden Islam and its founder are off limits. Well, it's more than shouting. It was in part because of riots, murders, and further threats of violence, all in the name of the religion of peace. It's hypocritical if networks such as Comedy Central allow depictions of Jesus and Buddha, especially in a mocking fashion, but not Muhammad...oh, sorry, but not *********. And yet in the very episode that was censored Jesus watches porn and Buddha does lines of coke. If you didn't get the point of why they did these things, then you didn't really watch the episode. Even with the censorship, the purpose is all too clear.

So, to make up for the self-castration by censorship that major networks have done, it is up to regular folks to proudly depict a major religious figure. Today we draw MUHAMMAD.

Why do this? Simply to insult?

Perhaps for some, this will be the case. The recent videos of Thunderf00t on YouTube suggest that. However, I see a very important reason that is beyond petty blasphemies or mockeries. If thousands stand up and do the thing that so many mobs complain about, the power of the mod will be undone. If threats are made idol and anger begets more or what is undesired, the vehicle of violence will be ripped of its fuel and die on the side of the road. Not all can be attacked, and with so many targets it will overwhelm those that decry free expression all that will happen is tails will go between legs and the stupidly proud mobsters will cower away.

Already the effect is felt. Pakistan has banned access to Facebook because of a group promoting the depiction of the prophet. An entire nation is supposed to be afraid of cartoons now? They have to block one of the largest peer-2-peer networking sights in the world? Well, perhaps once they find out that you can Google images of the prophet they will have to ban the Internet. Yeah, I'm sure abandoning modern technology is the way to go forward and become a first-world nation. With nukes. (Crap.)
(UPDATE: Now YouTube has been blocked in Pakistan!)

Shall I draw Muhammad and potential put my livelihood at risk? No. Not because of fear of violence. Rather, I just suck at art.

Instead, how about letting real artists show us the prophet. In fact, how about Muslims drawing Muhammad?

This is from a 15th century leaflet, depicting the prophet being called upon by the angel Gabriel to speak of the word of Allah.

How could a Muslim possibly depict the prophet? Isn't that against the faith? Is this kosher?

(Note: the Wikipedia page on the subject is very good, especially concerning the response on the editors of the site to those that wished to remove images of Muhammad on the "Depictions of Muhammad" page.)

If you turn to the Qur'an, there is nothing about not being allowed to draw a picture of the prophet. It does not allow idolatry (Sura 21:52-4), similar to that found in Judaism and Christianity. Yet in these religions there are plenty of depictions of Jesus, Moses, etc. Occasionally there are puritans, such as, well, the Puritans that not only forbade the celebration of Christmas and birthdays, but even stain-glass windows in churches.

Now, even non-believers can appreciate the glories of medieval architecture in cathedrals. The minsters of England, Notre Dame of Paris, and so on are beautiful in their own right, even if the religion itself has an ugly side. Similarly, a mosque is marvelous when well-built, and the above piece of art is also masterful.

Yet some Muslims would rather put this page to the torch. In fact, many old Persian pieces of art showing Muhammad were destroyed in the middle of the last millennium. As far as I am concerned, drawing Muhammad is not anti-religious; rather, it is both pro-free speech and pro-art. Why not fill the world with the beautiful? Why destroy that which was made with devotion, especially when it is devotion to your more glorified figures?

It may be the case that South Park's Muhammad is not as masterful as others, but it is not revolting either.

A prophet that can shoot fire from his hands? And has nice threads? I'll sign up!

Oh, but no, this is too much for some. What possible basis can there be for this apparent displeasure with any drawn image of Muhammad?

Since the problem in this case does not stem from the holy book, instead you must look to the traditional literature, the Hadith. These are works that claim a basis in tradition going back to the early days of Islam. And they are about a dime a dozen. Not all hadiths are considered canonical, and historians doubt a better number of their contents. Nonetheless, some of these are held in high regard by Muslim scholars, much like the Talmud in Judaism or the apostolic fathers in Catholicism.

In one of these traditions, it is inappropriate to draw any living creature. Some go so far to ban the painting of anything (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 648; Sahih Muslim, 24, 5272)! No art at all? Well, that is much like the Taliban's policies, which include the complete removal of music from life. But why on earth remove art from life? From what I can tell, the theological idea is that it is boastful for the human to depict the world that Allah created and call what you had done your own creation. In the first of the cited hadiths, Allah calls the artist unjust and challenges them to create the smallest of things. And so, in the Hanafi school of law, a part of Sunni Islamic world, forbids all depictions of animals and humans.

What could be more anti-human than the walling off of humanities creativity in rendering the world around us. These fundamentalist imams and their like which to starve us off of all the created world in order to focus on their deity and rituals. This is the most strident stand against humanist values, deploring what abilities we have in order to shut out the very thing so worth exploring. It is the death of the soul for the sake of "saving" it. One may cut off a limb to avoid a more serious sickness, but this is a lobotomy as deep into the psyche as possible.

But then why are the Muslims only crying about images of Muhammad when even pictures of people or animals is so terrible? There is one reason that I can see, and that is when these complaints are made Westerners back down and cower to these demands. That weakness has allowed the tyrannical misanthropy of cowards who could not possibly persuade by reason to cripple some of the most important rights in the democratic world. Also, the prevention of depictions of Muhammad stave off criticisms of the religion he represents; if you fear to as much as draw him, do you really have the courage to spit at his beliefs or chide his philosophy?

This is about power, and I for one shall not yield to such barbaric hatred of the human condition. Not only shall I put up pictures of people and places, cattle and the cosmos, I shall put up the image of the prophet Muhammad and the various prophets sacred to the major religions of the world. Not to insult, not to harass, but to empower the human spirit, to let it soar no matter what weights some philistine wants to place on its wings.

The religion of Islam has done much that is vile, but I shall oppose it with the beautiful and of its own creation. Let these fools who prefer medieval thinking to return to caves with their head in the desert sand. Let them hide from the wonders of the universe and the minds that inhabit it, the free minds that will not be shackled by superstition and fear. Let their timidity be writ large as their own symbols of religion destroy them.

LET THEM SEE MUHAMMAD

Liar, Liar, Faith on Fire

The news of the continuing Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal is rather unending and new facts about what certain figures did and did not do, what they knew and when they knew it, and what the current authorities are planning to do about these issues. There is so much scandal here it makes Nixon look insignificant. And the scale only increases and stories of abuse are found in most every continent.

What kind of credibility can such an organization have when it comes to cases of morality and public policy? When it comes right down to it, the Catholic hierarchy has proven they don't care about morals, but about their power. One need only consider medieval history with its crusades and inquisitions to gain lands and break resistance against the authority of the Pope.

And of course, there is lying for power. Recently, the Pope made a pilgrimage to the Shroud of Turin. This is a well-demonstrated medieval fake, yet

He said that keeping up that hope is the message of the Shroud of Turin, in which disciples see their sufferings "mirrored" in the suffering of Christ, CNA reported.

The shroud is a message of hope, mirroring the suffering of Christ? How is a known forgery, produced in order to bilk people of their money a symbol of hope? It's a symbol of corruption and greed, and the Pope wishes to use it as a source of religious power. He wants to use a lie, a proved lie at that, as justification for faith.

If your faith is dependent upon medieval lies, you have another thing coming.

Then again, there is a long history of using lies to get people to believe what they want you to in the Christian tradition. For example, Eusebius, a Christian historian in the fourth century, believed that telling falsehood was good for the state. Eusebius is also one to use forged documents for his points, such as letters from Jesus (History of the Church, 1.13), and he may be the creator of the testimony of Jesus in Josephus (the Testimonium Flavianum).

Apparently, that ninth commandment is not so unbreakable, at least in a long line of tradition by an organization that now tries its best to cover up the molestation of children by its priests, silenced by its bishops and cardinals, and now one of those cardinals is pope. I guess when your system is this corrupt, veneration of false idols is hardly a problem.

Paul and the Sayings of Jesus

Recently there has been a considerable smattering of arguments concerning the very existence of Jesus, mostly with a university professor of religion, James McGrath. I have followed some of the back and forth in these battles between McGrath and Neil Godfrey and Thomas Verenna. I have preferred the latter's interactions, especially since he provides lots of good references in his posts. However, one item in a comment on a post by Godfrey got me thinking.

This concerns a passage in 1 Corinthians 7:10. This is a statement concerning divorce amongst Christians converts, namely in Corinth.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. (NIV)

Note that the NIV is not necessarily the best translation, but it has some of the easiest prose to follow. Nonetheless, the exact translation of the verse is not of concern. The point is that Paul says that he has a commandment from the Lord concerning the nature of divorce. This is taken as Paul referring to a teaching of Jesus, and so Paul must think Jesus was a person giving such advice. The advice on divorce should have something to do with that found in the Gospels, namely in Mark 10. There Jesus says that a man that divorces and marries another woman commits adultery, and similarly with the woman. A similar sentiment is found in Matthew 5. However, there the simple act of getting a divorce makes the woman an adulteress. Also importantly, this is to be in contrast to Deuteronomy 24:1 which gives the ability to divorce.

So, first note that if Matthew has the original saying of Jesus, it doesn't fit the Pauline version very well. Paul does not say that the mere act of divorcing makes one party an adulterer. In the very next verse

But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Now the divorce can happen, but the woman can remarry only one person. So, perhaps we should assume that the Markan version is the older and Matthew has made the condition stronger. Also, Matthew is dependent on Mark, so this appears to be Matthew taking liberty with the text.

However, Jesus in Mark does not simply say that he is the authority in this matter, and therefore you must listen to him. Rather, Jesus quotes the Old Testament for the proclamation that divorce should not be done. In particular Jesus uses Genesis to say that men and women were designed by God to join together and not be separated. Further, Mark says that no man can separate man and woman. This runs contrary to Paul's version as well; Paul allows there to be separation, but Mark says that no man can make this possible. So Mark and Paul are not in agreement.

Now, does Paul need to be saying that Jesus spoke this commandment in a historical time frame? Paul often uses scripture to back up his position, and he may very well believe that his advice is based on his reading of the Old Testament. For example, Malachi 2 gives a strong pronouncement from God against divorce, in particular saying he hates it. The LXX of Malachi 2:16 says this was spoken by the lord (kurios), the same word used by Paul in 1 Cor 7:10.

So a pronouncement from Jesus in the flesh is not necessary for Paul to claim a commandment from on high about divorce. This does not mean that Paul is not referring to Jesus; I only claim is that it is not a necessary conclusion. On the other hand, what is probable? Considering that Paul's understanding of what Jesus said is significantly different from what is recorded in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, this gives no reason to think they refer to a recorded source by the Galilean prophet. Further, Mark has Jesus make a scriptural argument, while Matthew uses the force of Jesus' say-so. It looks like the situation is evolving from theological argument amongst the Christians to dictate by Jesus himself. Jesus originally in Mark quotes scripture, and to use the maxim of Bultmann, who remembers the great man quoting somebody else? Worse yet, Luke and John drop this teaching of Jesus; if it went back to the founder, why did Luke think it wasn't worth repeating? He was using Mark, so apparently Luke doesn't have the same problem with divorce; can this really be the case if this is what the very Son of God actually said in history? If instead the commandment was a determination from the Old Testament and revelation, perhaps then Luke's community didn't buy the scriptural argument; that makes a lot more sense than Luke denying the authority of God on earth! If Mark and Paul are only making arguments based on their understanding of the Old Testament or their personal, subjective impressions of the religion, then Luke coming to a different conclusion makes plenty of sense. This becomes significant evidence in favor of no oral tradition starting with the master.

Let us also consider how this commandment of Jesus could have been passed around. Suppose that Paul is in fact quoting his dead master. This means that the authority of Jesus' statements are sufficient to make a matter settled. This is similar for Matthew's Jesus, at least in this one case. However, Mark's Jesus requires a scriptural argument. How did Jesus get demoted from authoritative despot to exeget only to be bumped up again? The historical situation in Mark 10 is unlikely since Pharisees were not running around beyond the Jordan. This is desert land, not a place that needed priestly figures. The context is very strange. It is hard to say that this can go back to this historical situation. Matthew also places this pronouncement in the Galilee, it seems, so the details of substance and location are amiss. Very strange if this is a recollection.

Now, I have utilized the arguments of Early Doherty concerning this particular passage. This argument (#8) is that Paul can very well be claiming that his source is revelation by God/Jesus rather than an oral tradition. This can also make sense of this passage as well as 1 Cor 9:14 which also says that the Lord commands those that preach the gospel must make a living by the gospel. We should also take to heart what Paul says in Galatians 1:11-12 that says he received his gospel by revelation from Jesus himself; he specifically says that no man taught him these things. This works against the notion that Paul learned about what Jesus said from other apostles, and instead he suggests that his information comes from revelation and scripture.

So, the phrase in Paul alone does not need to indicate that Paul is quoting a historical Jesus, and moreover Paul suggests he gained his knowledge about Jesus through revelation and scripture. Without this latter consideration, the historicist stance explains the statement by Paul about as well as the mythicist, but the extra bit from Gal 1 suggests that the mythicist reading of 1 Cor 7 is not strained while the historicist position requires Paul to exaggerate his claims in Galatians. McGrath often argues that the mythicists propose situations that are less probable and require more special pleading in readings of verses. In this case, it seems that this is in fact true for the historicist camp.

Note, this does not mean Jesus wasn't a historical figure just from this argument; it doesn't even establish probability in favor. What it does do is demonstrate that one can justifiably read passages in Paul that some with to use to prove Paul knew a historical Jesus figure can be validly read without ad hoc assertions that fit in the mythicist paradigm. In some ways, it actually fits better in the mythicist paradigm because of the statements in Gal 1. Nonetheless, passages such as 1 Cor 7:10 cannot be used without further justification against the mythicist case.